That gets to the heart of what, last week, probably all of us agreed needs to be considered about what we do with the accreditation function. I fundamentally believe that we cannot continue to do that after this bill. If we do not get the bill right, we will have failed a group of young people, because we will have to start again.

I wish that the bill had included some of it in the first place but it did not do so; I made that clear in our stage 1 debate and in the amendments that I have lodged so far. On the basis of our discussion last week—in that, at stage 3, we will consider how the options for accreditation could look—I am still hopeful.

We have spoken about the SCQF Partnership, the inspectorate, Education Scotland and a new body, which, for the purposes of my amendments, I have called curriculum Scotland. On that basis, I do not intend to support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 290 at this stage, if it is pressed, not necessarily because I do not agree with its specific detail but because if, at stage 3, we look at one of those options, it would be neater to do it all at that point. I encourage Miles Briggs not to press amendment 290 on behalf of Stephen Kerr.

I whole-heartedly agree, and that is the reason why amendment 233 is important. If the cabinet secretary is minded to intervene on me, she might be able to respond to the point that she had to make to Ross Greer.

I thank the member for that intervention and, as ever, for bringing absolute clarity to the discussion.

The point about asking the question and it being answered is really important. Part of my motivation for lodging the amendments was to ask the question and to get someone to do the work, because otherwise I fear that it will not be progressed. I can see huge benefits to progressing that approach, which is why I lodged these two amendments.

I take the point, and it is important that we strike a balance in that regard, but recent history has taught us that we have to err on the side of caution and of forcing the culture, in a way that I think that we can, to give credibility, teeth and accountability to the charters. If we do not have something in legislation that says how the charters should be monitored and, indeed, enforced, and how people can be involved in their development, they could be just tokenistic documents as opposed to living and valuable tools that young people and others can use to give effect to their rights. I take the point about tick-box exercises, but I would say that, without my amendments, the charters themselves could become tick-box exercises or part of a tokenistic approach.

Amendment 255 requires qualifications Scotland to work with those consulted to prepare and publish the learner charter. Again, as I have said, that process should include learners at every stage of the charter development and publication process.

Amendment 256 specifies that the learner charter applies to people of all ages undertaking qualifications, while amendment 260 ensures that adult learners who are not covered by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child protections will nevertheless also have their additional needs recognised. Amendment 261 adds a requirement for qualifications Scotland to comply with the learner charter and to monitor that compliance, which will, again, strengthen the charter’s role.

Amendment 262 matches amendment 256 in replacing “persons” with

“children, young people and other persons”

to underline the fact that charters are relevant to all people of all ages who are undertaking qualifications.

Amendment 263 requires qualifications Scotland, when preparing the learner charter, to consult with parents and children and young people who are undertaking a qualification to ensure that the important voice of parents can continue to improve the charter’s development.

Amendment 264 requires qualifications Scotland to consult with people who use BSL, who have protected characteristics and who have additional support needs. I do not think that, at this point, I need rehearse the arguments as to why that is crucial.

Amendment 265 requires consultation with the qualifications Scotland board before producing the learner charter, so that we can get all of the relevant people on board in order to progress it appropriately, and amendment 266 requires qualifications Scotland to seek the view of the strategic advisory council and to revise the learner charter in line with any recommendations made by it. Amendment 268 is a paving amendment for later amendments.

Amendment 271 places a duty on qualifications Scotland to comply with the teacher and practitioner charter and to monitor its compliance.

Amendment 254 asks that the regulation-making provision outline

“the manner in which such concerns are to be raised”.

I take the point that the national qualifications body will set out and put in place a process for that, but does the cabinet secretary agree that the ways in which the body was or was not prepared to accept concerns in relation to the history exam caused significant concern in the sector, including in relation to how some history teachers were treated and how the exam and concerns about it were approached? Does the cabinet secretary accept that there should be some regulation from the Government to set out what is required, so that the qualifications body can at least set parameters around the Government’s expectations with regard to the manner in which such concerns should be raised and how the qualifications body should respond to them?

Unsurprisingly, on amendment 245, for probably the opposite reason to the one that was given by the cabinet secretary, I think that it is important that the strategic advisory council can operate without the undue influence of the Government.

Amendment 246 seeks to stipulate that one or more members of the council must also be a member of curriculum Scotland. For the reasons that I gave earlier, and given that we are all open to discussing at stage 3 the accreditation function, where that would sit, and the national landscape, I will not move amendment 246. I note that, in Ross Greer’s contribution on amendment 246, he ruled out supporting the creation of such a body, but I hope that that approach will soften between now and stage 3, so that we can have the discussion on the accreditation function and look at all the options on the table, so that stage 3 can give us the solution that we require on accreditation.

On amendment 247, which states that council members are to be appointed for a period of four years, I understand the cabinet secretary’s points on terms of office but, in the past, there has been inertia and we have had circumstances in which decisions have not been fleet of foot or responsive enough to a wide-ranging and fast-changing education system. It is therefore important that, at the very least, appointment is reviewed every four years. The amendment contains the opportunity of reappointment for a further period of four years, and I am keen to test that at stage 2.

On the basis of the contributions that I have heard from Ross Greer and the cabinet secretary, I am prepared not to press amendment 248 at this point and to discuss potentially refining that amendment at stage 3. However, it is crucial that we give some indication of the Parliament’s recommendations and requirements of the strategic advisory council. The organisations and representatives that I have outlined in amendment 248 all have a crucial stake in our education system, and they need to have a voice on the council. However, I take the point about some of the named organisations and about looking at that again at stage 3—I think that the cabinet secretary is willing to look at that.

I am not sure that using the negative procedure would give me confidence that the Parliament had sufficient ability to scrutinise the regulations. I might be inclined to encourage the use of the affirmative procedure for such regulations, but I am prepared to not move amendment 248 and to discuss the matter ahead of stage 3.

I am prepared to not move amendment 249, on the basis of the discussion that we have had. I wanted to test the tolerance figure, but I lodged the amendment before I saw the other amendment that provides that no members of staff of qualifications Scotland can be on the council, which I also support. Therefore, I will not move amendment 249.

On amendments 250 and 251, I did not hear from the cabinet secretary that anything in the bill would require consultation with Education Scotland, but I heard the point about the regulations providing for that. On that basis, I will not move amendments 250 and 251, but I go back to my previous point about Parliament being able to scrutinise the regulations and about who is involved, which is incredibly important.

On amendment 252, I take on board the points that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer made about how to achieve that networked approach. It is incredibly important that we do that. We have a hierarchical system when it comes to involvement and engagement with the front line. The distance between what happens in schools and policy direction is too broad and the middle is too cluttered, which we must address. Amendment 252 could have done that, but I am prepared to negotiate ahead of stage 3 to agree an amendment for the Parliament’s approval so that we can address the issue in the bill.

Amendment 253 would define “registered teacher”, “college teaching staff” and “relevant qualification”. I do not think that it would be a bad thing to define those terms in the bill, so I am minded to move that amendment. I do not think that it relates to any of the amendments that I have said that I will not press or move.

This part of the legislation is incredibly important and speaks to the point that, in the past, there has been a lack of voice for both learners and practitioners in the system. The charters seek to address that, and the amendments in this group strengthen that approach by putting voice, accountability and participation at the heart of the qualifications system.

The charters are not just symbolic documents—they have to be living tools that articulate what learners, teachers and practitioners can expect and how those expectations will be met. The amendments that I and others have lodged strengthen the charters by ensuring that qualifications Scotland works with the most affected, not just to write the charters but to revise, monitor and comply with them.

My amendments embed a culture of consultation that is meaningful, inclusive and continuous—a theme that the committee has discussed at length this morning—especially, and importantly, for those who are left out of policy development, such as care-experienced learners, British Sign Language users and others. The amendments also provide for regular review every three years, so that the charters can stay relevant to learners’ real experiences and do not gather dust on a shelf.

Accountability in the system matters—and I think that, in saying that, I probably speak for most, if not all, of the people around the table and those watching our deliberations today. That is why my amendments require qualifications Scotland to report on any failure to meet the charter’s expectations and to explain what it is going to do to address that. Whether someone is a young person at school, an apprentice, a college lecturer or an adult returning to learning, the charters will be their guide, their guarantee and their voice in the system, and they will be crucial in that respect.

I am looking at the text of the amendments. Amendments 244 and 328 are about getting advice on whether, in order to allow either the HMIE or qualifications Scotland to exercise their function, there should be a unique learner number and there should be national data-sharing agreements. The amendments do not seek to set up those aspects but, in order to progress action on them, would enable the question to be asked as to whether they should be set up.

I take the point about the role of both organisations in doing that, but I think that the amendments are sufficiently narrowly drawn to the functions of the organisations to which they refer.

I move amendment 244.

The amendments in my name in this group are an attempt to provide clarity, consistency and confidence, ensuring that learners and employers can understand what qualifications mean, how they compare and where they lead. The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Partnership is one of Scotland’s most important educational assets—I think that most of the committee’s members will share that view—and the bill should do more to embed its role in the new system.

The amendments that I have lodged in this particular group ensure that the qualifications would be named clearly, mapped transparently and developed in active partnership with the SCQF Partnership, which would remove confusion and strengthen trust in the system. Without the national framework, we could risk reintroducing the same opacity and duplication that has failed learners in the past, and these amendments seek to fix that.

We know that people can sit exams and take qualifications at the same level in the Scottish credit and qualifications framework, but the words that are associated with them—highers, modern apprenticeships or foundation apprenticeships—are not always fully understood with regard to the amount of work and effort that has gone in. Parity of esteem across the education system in that regard is fundamental to ensuring that we serve the learners of the future.

Amendment 229, in my name, would require qualifications Scotland to name qualifications in a way that aligns with the relevant SCQF level. The aim is to create an easy-to-navigate system that ensures ease of access for learners and reflects best practice, but which also embeds the parity that the committee and others have talked about hoping to achieve in the system. It would put into practice the principle of simplicity; it would ensure that learners, parents and employers can immediately see and understand what level of qualification someone has; and it would remove any lack of clarity in the system that could be a barrier to progression.

Amendment 231 would build on the quality assurance established by amendment 230 in the previous group by requiring qualifications Scotland to enter into a shared confidence agreement with the SCQF Partnership to formalise that collaborative relationship and to guarantee that SCQF standards were embedded in the development of qualifications. That is needed, because without that clear framework, learners, teaching staff and, as I have said, employers might find it slightly difficult to understand exactly what a learner has achieved. It is incredibly important that we equip young people with the types of skills, and the passport for such skills, to enable them to demonstrate to employers in the future what they have been able to achieve.

Amendment 238 would require qualifications Scotland, in the exercise of its functions, to “have regard to” the SCQF.

I hope that the cabinet secretary and committee members can support the amendments in this group. As members will see, amendments 238 and 229 could each offer supportive functions, but there are options if members feel that they want to support a slightly different approach. I hope, therefore, that members across the committee, supported by the Government, will be able to find something in this group of amendments that they can support and progress.

I move amendment 229.

I support the intention behind amendment 302, but can Miles Briggs clarify what definition of the term “registered teacher” Stephen Kerr is using?